Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications

No.
That's irrelevant to my critique.
Edit: Vunther hits something important. It's about what senses we mean the words 'fortification,' 'assault gun,' and so on. Furthermore, expressed intent vs flavor text vs evident design from data, etc.?

"Fortification" "assault gun" are terms used by the military and have clear definitions, Relic also uses them. I use them in the same sense.

I'm asserting that the statement I quoted suffers from an unhealthy approach to communication.

You asserting wrong. That approach is towards Katitof specifically because it is "unhealthy" to try to communicate with him.
The reason why I responded to Katitof in that manner is the he deliberately writes with ambiguity and lose usage of defined terms in order to be able retract what he has said when he is proven wrong. I am allot more interest to understand what others have to say.

For instance take this Katitof qoute:

"These units are NOT designed to fight fortifications, because there are no real fortifications in coh2 bar three emplacements,..."

His argument seem to be that assault gun are not designed to fight fortification because fortification do not exist.

Instead of writing that though he writes "real" fortification so he can leave it open to interpretation and "bar three emplacements" again leaving it open to interpretation.

This sentence is written in away that deliberately does not clarify if emplacements are fortification or not and yet he wants to use it as argument...

Thing are quite simple either emplacements are fortification or not, if there are fortification in COH2 (and there are) his argument holds no water...

It simply pointless try to argue without someone who pretends to say something but actually says nothing...who in addition, is usually rude and acting as a "Mr.know it all"

I am actually little bit surprised that this thread still in the main lobby.

It seems to me the only way it's even going to resemble a constructive thread is If first we completely agree with the OP before the conversation even begins.

I for one belive this thread is only serving the OP self indulgence of believing he's right despite everything in the contrary presented to him in any topic.

I am actually little bit surprised that this thread still in the main lobby.
It seems to me the only way it's even going to resemble a constructive thread is If first we completely agree with the OP before the conversation even begins.

Well in order for a debated about heavy assault guns and fortification to begin one has acknowledge that:
1)Assault guns exist
2)fortification exist
Some people seem to have trouble accepting it although the evidence is there. You can disagree with the rest of the OP is you like...

On the other hand, are reload bulletins better than accuracy or cooldown bulletins for small arms?

1) Yes
2) not really
3) yes

Just to clarify are these you are answers to the questions?

1)Assault guns exist?

1) Yes

2)fortification exist?

2) not really

On the other hand, are reload bulletins better than accuracy or cooldown bulletins for small arms?

3) yes

Well in order for a debated about heavy assault guns and fortification to begin one has acknowledge that:
1)Assault guns exist
2)fortification exist
Some people seem to have trouble accepting it although the evidence is there. You can disagree with the rest of the OP is you like...

On the other hand, are reload bulletins better than accuracy or cooldown bulletins for small arms?

Because it's freaking irrelevant.

Call them bunkers, fortifications, field defenses, emplacements, whatever you please. Yes, they are here, some doctrines/factions use them more than others, they feature in the game, but they're not fortifications as they were used in WW2, IE to deny an area to the enemy unless they used heavy and specialized firepower. They are speedily buildable defenses that shore up your line and provide support fire if you need it, and are in no way as crucial in the game as they were in reality.

In the same way, assault guns feature in the game, but they aren't used exclusively as fortification busters like they were in real life. In-game, the Stug is a anti-tank platform first and foremost. The Sturmtiger is a blob buster. The Brumbar is an anti-infantry unit. The ISU-152 is a multipurpose long range direct fire unit. The IS-2 is a heavy tank meant to engage infantry and vehicles head-on. So on and so forth. These units also serve in a pinch when attacking defenses, but it is not their primary purpose, and damage bonuses against them are of marginal use at best. It's why no one uses the Brumbar.

In the same way, basic footsoldiers feature in the game, but aren't used like in reality because fights happen at 30-40 meters max which is night on pistol and shotgun range in real life, and standing in the open for a few seconds at that range mean you will be killed rather than tickled as it happens in-game. Yet snipers can barely fire above that range, and in game serve as offensive mobile units that pick off one unit after the other while in reality sniper were mostly defensive unless they hunted officiers.

That's what people have been trying to get in your skull. Yes, those units are featured. No, it doesn't mean they are used as they were used in real life, because this is a game made for fun and balance above all. ''Realism'' is only useful insofar as it serves as a backdrop for the WW2 setting, so you won't start to see laser guns or Orcs charging in with swords. If balance and/or fun doesn't demand that a unit behave realistically, it won't. Or do you think Soviet Penals were given SVT-40 and flamethrowers and told to ride around burning stuff in an M3 IRL?

I gave this topic more attention that it probably deserves, but jeez you really can't understand this on your own?

Offtopic: accuracy is leagues ahead been better than reload and cooldown.

Accuracy translates directly into DPS increase while reload/cooldown is around 1/4 as effective as accuracy is.

Offtopic: accuracy is leagues ahead been better than reload and cooldown.
Accuracy translates directly into DPS increase while reload/cooldown is around 1/4 as effective as accuracy is.

Thanks for stepping in because Gen0bi seems incapable to accept anything I say even when he is wrong. Although it seem offtopic it is not, Gen0bi has argued:

..., which both revel that you (myself)do not have a understanding of the game ...

Which is why there reload bulletins, concidently the bulletins that a player should desire the most, are labeled "rare"

This simply proves that I have better understanding of the game than him, so according to him again, I am better qualified to write about balance than him...

Because it's freaking irrelevant.

The existence or not of assault guns and Fortifications in an thread specifically about them is not irrelevant, is paramount.

Call them bunkers, fortifications, field defenses, emplacements, whatever you please...

Thanks for the permission, now pls explain it, to others that deny their existence.

The Brumbar is an anti-infantry unit... These units also serve in a pinch when attacking defenses, but it is not their primary purpose, and damage bonuses against them are of marginal use at best. It's why no one uses the Brumbar.

I did not claim that is was their primary purpose in game, but is one of their roles...
Brumabar vet 1 ability is called 'Bunker Busting Barrage' meaning that it designed against structures.
The AVRE has 145% modifier against buildings and characterizing such a modifier "marginal use at best." is an understatement...

I gave this topic more attention that it probably deserves,...

Then pls don't give it anymore...

I love when conversations address etymology and syntax. Existence doesn't directly correlate to utility or representation. Can't we just play the game and move on with our lives? Does one really desire to "be better qualified to discuss balance than another?" if that's the theater you want to die in be my guest, but damn if there aren't richer things in life than this..... "surrender your pride, 'cos happiness suits you"

1)Do fortifications exist in COH2?
Yes
2)Do Assault Guns exist in COH2?
Yes
3)Is the part of design intent of assault Guns to destroy buildings and fortifications?
In real life, Yes
In game, No. They are anti-infantry vehicles that use high explosive shells.

Does one really desire to "be better qualified to discuss balance than another?" if that's the theater you want to die in be my guest, but damn if there aren't richer things in life than this..... "surrender your pride, 'cos happiness suits you"

If only, the same comments where made every time folks in this forum harassed people and demanded of them to prove that they are "qualified" to discuss balance, usually by demanding a player card...

Well if you ask me, what should be debated is the idea suggested and not person suggesting. But that seem a bit difficult with the amount of trolling one gets and with people questioning ones "qualifications" to discuss balance....

Now that we established that:
Fortification exist in Coh2
Assault gun exist in Coh2
and that historically one of the main roles of assault gun was to clear fortification
we have one more issue, to establish so we can finally move on.

Some people claim that in game designed intent of A.G. (assault guns) in game does not include destroying structures (buildings and fortification).

Imo A.G. are designed to destroy structures and that is supported by the fact that in-game description of the units and role say so.

Further more, my opinion is supported by the fact that some of them receive modifiers that amplify the damage vs structures.

In the end of day even if their in-game designed intend was not to destroy structures (and that is highly unlikely) one should attempt to make it.

If Relic could introduce changes that would bring a unit closer to their real life role without upsetting balance they should do so because it would increase immersion....
If one could

eh, any AT weapon is just as effective against buildings as it is against tanks, if not more so. the reason the brit ones are so strong is because they cost so damn much.

I think that the only fortifications on the game would actualy be the soviet Foward HQ, the british foward observation point, the trenches and maybe even the osthern hull down, emplacements, even made to garrison, arent that kind of structures, at the end they are like suport weapons that are unable to move and cant be whipped out by snipers, but you pay fuel for that so they act like static tanks with poor armor but high Dps, to actually suport fortificated areas, but they arent the fortification itself, thats why you get embrace, to resist attacks when your front is broken and you are getting attacked by something that you cant fight, so you have time to reorganice the defense.

Assault guns "existed", those were SU-76 and Stug III, but they stop havind that role after they became dedicated AT

Now that we cleared things up a bit, we can move to a more interesting part, which is how to buff A.G. against structures without upsetting balance.

One could add some damage modifier similar to Avre against structures.

One could also make it veterancy related:

for instance Brumbar vet 1 ability "Bunker Busting Barrage" could have damage bonus or even bypass some of the "brace" damage reduction. For instance instead of 75% damage reduction the reduction could be lower down to 50%.
A similar change could be made to the Sturm Tiger (S.T.) also by adding similar affect in vet 1 since the vet 1 S.T. is quiet useless.

Similar change could be made to other assault guns like the Dozer, Kv-2 indirect, ISU-152 giving some anti-structure barrage abilities (where not available) or some structure damage modifiers with veterancy.

good job ketetof, now people think posting unoriginal videos is a valid contribution to a discussion

He had to do it, because he's Katitof's flunkey.